Talk:Nauclea orientalis

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Nauclea orientalis article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Plants Mid‑importance

	Plants portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PlantsWikipedia:WikiProject PlantsTemplate:WikiProject Plantsplant articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Australia: Biota / Indigenous peoples Low‑importance

	Australia portal Nauclea orientalis is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian biota (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Indigenous peoples of Australia (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Southeast Asia Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Southeast Asia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Southeast Asia-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Southeast AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject Southeast AsiaTemplate:WikiProject Southeast AsiaSoutheast Asia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Papua New Guinea Low‑importance

	New Guinea portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Papua New Guinea, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Papua New Guinea on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Papua New GuineaWikipedia:WikiProject Papua New GuineaTemplate:WikiProject Papua New GuineaPapua New Guinea articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

A fact from Nauclea orientalis appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 12 May 2011 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that bark extracts of Leichhardt trees (pictured) can be used to stun fish and make them easier to catch?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2011/May.

Wikipedia

Pictures

You're an abrasive editor aren't you? You initiated the change, without even a proper caption. Of all the things to fight about you pick this. All the pictures the article has now, I had to obtain manually by emailing authors or creating them. The article layout isn't in danger of being swamped by pictures, thus that is not the issue here. A long shot of the tree, while appreciated, is more or less useless in terms of identification. A medium range shot is more informative with regards to size and shape of leaves and flowers. Though there are indeed similar pictures in the article body, their illustrative purpose is specific to their subsections (inflorescence, range). I've reverted it again.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 12:35, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is the main image correct?

Can anyone (other than the photographer of course) confirm that the main image in the article (the long shot of the full tree) is actually of the correct tree? It looks very different to the other specimens I have seen, but it's hard to tell as the full resolution photo looks like it was taken on a phone so it's impossible to make out any detail. -- Malvineous (talk) 09:59, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are any of the other images Commons more likely to be correctly identified? If so, the photo could be replaced. I'm not familiar with this species myself, and have no idea whether or not the image is correct. For what it's worth, the photographer contributes pretty extensively to articles on Australia plants; I'm inclined to trust their ID. Plantdrew (talk) 22:46, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply! The others look correct to my untrained eye, but seeing the article photo next to the ones on Commons, it looks like it could well be correct. I haven't seen one this large before (even in photos) so it probably is a good one to have in the article. If the photographer has many other correct identifications then this one is probably right too, so I'm happy with that. -- Malvineous (talk) 00:04, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Nauclea orientalis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:17, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]